Re: informix market share
Not a technical support thread but a debate over database market-share figures. Participants argue about which markets should count (Windows, mainframe), with one poster citing Gartner numbers suggesting DB2's new-license revenue rivals Oracle's and crediting mainframe sales, while another counters that mainframe customers are locked into an expensive proprietary platform. Oracle's Mark Townsend points out that analyst firms measure revenue differently (some include support, upgrades or re-licensing as 'new' license revenue), making comparisons unreliable. No conclusion or resolution is reached.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
"Serge Rielau" <srielau@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message news:3v2rq0F12n6pqU2@individual.net... > Bob Jones wrote: >>>>>I did read it, I was in fact pointing out that I think your selection >>>>>of market size is flawed. I don't see how you can exclude Windows, its >>>>>the largest market for all of the vendors, including Informix (I >>>>>presume); and to provide comparable numbers to the other vendor's >>>>>reported numbers in the article you posted, you need to take the whole >>>>>market. >>>> >>>> >>>>You do have a point. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Including mainframes? >>> >> >> >> What is this deal with including mainframes or not? Should we start >> talking about DB2 market share including mainframes, and Informix >> excluding mainframes? > That as a joke. Some would like to exclude mainframes just like they like > to exclude Windows. I think the term used is "marketshare on modern OS" > ;-) > > Cheers > Serge > -- > Serge Rielau > DB2 SQL Compiler Development > IBM Toronto Lab I forgot that IBMers consider mainframe a mordern OS.
"Bob Jones" <email@me.not> wrote in message news:5F5jf.34414$6e1.17780@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > I forgot that IBMers consider mainframe a mordern OS. yeah whatever. check this table http://www.gartner.com/press_releases/asset_127553_11.html The *new license* sales of DB2 is as much as Oracle. Since bulk of DB2 sales is on mainframe platform, it tells that Db2 on mainframe still sells as much as Oracle. I think this fact by itself deserves respect. If anyone takes an inventory of mission critical applications running on databases, Db2 may end up as #1.
> The *new license* sales of DB2 is as much as Oracle. Since bulk > of DB2 sales is on mainframe platform, it tells that Db2 on mainframe > still sells as much as Oracle. I think this fact by itself deserves > respect. > > If anyone takes an inventory of mission critical applications running on > databases, Db2 may end up as #1. > > Could it be because many customers are locked in to mainframe and the software on mainframe is outrageously expensive? Of course it deserves respect. IBM can sell DB2 on its own proprietary platform.
Bob Jones wrote: > I forgot that IBMers consider mainframe a mordern OS. Pecunia Non Olet Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab
Bob Jones wrote: >>The *new license* sales of DB2 is as much as Oracle. Since bulk >>of DB2 sales is on mainframe platform, it tells that Db2 on mainframe >>still sells as much as Oracle. I think this fact by itself deserves >>respect. >> >>If anyone takes an inventory of mission critical applications running on >>databases, Db2 may end up as #1. >> >> > > > Could it be because many customers are locked in to mainframe and the > software on mainframe is outrageously expensive? Of course it deserves > respect. IBM can sell DB2 on its own proprietary platform. > Why would a customer be locked into the mainframe? Isn't RAC on Linux good enough? Also note that analysts generally count NEW licence revenues. That would hardly be revenue coming from lock in. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab
Serge Rielau wrote: > Also note that analysts generally count NEW licence revenues. Nope - the two leading analysts firms actually use very different metrics for revenue. At least one of them includes support revenue. Also, even when they do count new license revenue, the numbers are not always comparable. Some vendors charge for upgrades (i.e not part of a support contract), which then gets reported as new license revenues. Some other vendors will change license terms (maybe introducing new licensing packages, for example), and then report existing customers who transition from one license plan to a new license plan as 'new' revenue as well. And last but not least, if you look at SEC 10 Q filings, you will pretty much find that there is only one vendor that reports true license vs support revenue. Which then gives the other vendors some degree of leeway as to what they tell the analysts the actual split is.
Mark Townsend wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: > >> Also note that analysts generally count NEW licence revenues. > > > Nope - the two leading analysts firms actually use very different > metrics for revenue. At least one of them includes support revenue. > > Also, even when they do count new license revenue, the numbers are not > always comparable. > > Some vendors charge for upgrades (i.e not part of a support contract), > which then gets reported as new license revenues. > > Some other vendors will change license terms (maybe introducing new > licensing packages, for example), and then report existing customers who > transition from one license plan to a new license plan as 'new' revenue > as well. > > And last but not least, if you look at SEC 10 Q filings, you will pretty > much find that there is only one vendor that reports true license vs > support revenue. Which then gives the other vendors some degree of > leeway as to what they tell the analysts the actual split is. So, if said vendor would e.g. convert a customer's Sun SMP box into a cluster of Linux boxes. Would that be counted as new license revenue? Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab